47 ms·

Neither of them claim it. Why is their opinion on land they do not claim relevant? (Other than because of force.)

by yreg 3y ago

kramler 3y ago
Croatia asserts its right to administer the patch through the simple expedient of actually administering it. The fact that Croatia claims to only be controlling access and evicting squatters on behalf of Serbia does not change the fact that Croatia is controlling access and evicting squatters. The Liberlanders' claim that the patch was terra nullius was silly from day one. An area is terra nullius if there is no recognized government hoping to run it, not if there is no recognized government that will publicly commit to keep running it forever. The Liberlanders' new claim that the patch is bona vacantia is just completely batshit gaga. Bona vacantia is about private ownership title rather than sovereignty, does not exist in civil law jurisdictions, and when successfully invoked just means ownership of the item in question has reverted to the Crown. We need a moratorium on ancaps having legal opinions until their semantics games become functionally distinguishable from SovCit woo.
dragonwriter 3y ago
There's a border definition dispute where its unclear whose side this piece if land falls on, and where Croatia has decided (and Serbia has acceded to this decision) to administer it until the dispute is resolved. But there's no dispute that either Serbia or Croatia owns it, and it doesn't really matter, as to any third party attempt to set up a state in defiance of the status quo administration, whether Croatia is conducting non-hostile administration of Serbian territory with Serbian consent or administering its own territory. If there's a smudge in the only copy of a contract you can find and you think it called for a 60/40 split of profits from a certain kind of joint activity in your partner’s favor, and they think it called for a 60/40 split in your favor, there's 20% that is uncertain until some reolution is reached, but that doesn’t mean that someone else can just restructure the deal unilaterally to be 40/40/20, which is (but for the actual numbers and the nonfungible nature of land) what Liberland is trying to do.
- dllthomas 3y ago
  To extend your metaphor, with a big "IIUC", there's a sense in which "neither side wants the land" but that's because there's another term in the contract where the party with the smaller portion on this 60/40 split gets something they both want even more than the 20%. They'd both rather have that thing, but they'd both rather have the 20% than not.

Neither of them claim it. Why is their opinion on land they do not claim relevant? (Other than because of force.)

by yreg 3y ago

Neither of them claim it. Why is their opinion on land they do not claim relevant? (Other than because of force.)

Croatia asserts its right to administer the patch through the simple expedient of actually administering it. The fact that Croatia claims to only be controlling access and evicting squatters on behalf of Serbia does not change the fact that Croatia is controlling access and evicting squatters. The Liberlanders' claim that the patch was terra nullius was silly from day one. An area is terra nullius if there is no recognized government hoping to run it, not if there is no recognized government that will publicly commit to keep running it forever. The Liberlanders' new claim that the patch is bona vacantia is just completely batshit gaga. Bona vacantia is about private ownership title rather than sovereignty, does not exist in civil law jurisdictions, and when successfully invoked just means ownership of the item in question has reverted to the Crown. We need a moratorium on ancaps having legal opinions until their semantics games become functionally distinguishable from SovCit woo.

dragonwriter 3y ago

There's a border definition dispute where its unclear whose side this piece if land falls on, and where Croatia has decided (and Serbia has acceded to this decision) to administer it until the dispute is resolved. But there's no dispute that either Serbia or Croatia owns it, and it doesn't really matter, as to any third party attempt to set up a state in defiance of the status quo administration, whether Croatia is conducting non-hostile administration of Serbian territory with Serbian consent or administering its own territory. If there's a smudge in the only copy of a contract you can find and you think it called for a 60/40 split of profits from a certain kind of joint activity in your partner’s favor, and they think it called for a 60/40 split in your favor, there's 20% that is uncertain until some reolution is reached, but that doesn’t mean that someone else can just restructure the deal unilaterally to be 40/40/20, which is (but for the actual numbers and the nonfungible nature of land) what Liberland is trying to do.

dllthomas 3y ago
To extend your metaphor, with a big "IIUC", there's a sense in which "neither side wants the land" but that's because there's another term in the contract where the party with the smaller portion on this 60/40 split gets something they both want even more than the 20%. They'd both rather have that thing, but they'd both rather have the 20% than not.